The odds are stacked greatly against my completely exhausting my HSA funds before the next enrollment period.

Just wait until you actually get sick. Then it will seem far less of a great deal.

That's true, but I plan to not get sick until I have a nice chunk of money in my HSA to tide me over until the next enrollment period when I will switch back to the HMO and start using my HSA to fund the copays and other charges. This gives me all the advantages of both plans.

In many urban areas, if you [leave a safe following distance] you will in fact get someone merging into that space about every 5 seconds.

Try it sometime. Maintain a 2-second following distance and see if someone merges into that space every 5 seconds. Maybe that happens in Miami or Boston, but not in San Diego.

The parent is a jerk because he/she leaves a safe following distance as required by tailgating laws? Really?

If you don't brake, the person following you has plenty of time to notice your bumper getting closer. It's only when you brake that the brake lights are needed. That's why they don't light up when you're coasting.

"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."

Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.

"An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia evaluated effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing by about a second and then introducing red light cameras. While the longer yellow reduced red light violations by 36 percent, adding camera enforcement further cut red light running by another 96 percent."

Source: Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40(1):327-33.

What's unsafe is drivers of fully-loaded semi-trailers who disobey the Basic Speed Law by driving the posted speed limit in inclement conditions.

Remember, the posted speed limit assumes ideal conditions, not the one you're describing. It's unsafe to drive the posted speed limit on ice or in heavy fog, and you can be cited for it.

Suppose they had used a Bayesian algorithm which determined on its own that tea party members were the most likely tax dodgers and therefore disproportionately picked tea party members for audits. Would that be against the law? If so, they would then have to remove the person's political party from the criteria the algorithm can use, just to stay within the law. The algorithm would no longer work so well, so it seems counterproductive to exclude certain criteria just because it involves a protected group of people.

By that measure, endorphins, epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and so on are also inputs.

The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time.

That isn't exactly true. Analog-to-digital converters, true random number generators, fluctuations in the power supply, RF fields, cosmic rays and so on mean that in real life, the same set of inputs won't always generate the same set of outputs, whether in androids or in their meaty analogs.

- Most important: I prefer somebody be employed

Do you realize that's the very definition of a Luddite?

Solar and wind can be primary energy sources in that they can provide a majority of electrical generation. With a smart grid (which uses variable pricing to keep demand below the level of supply), you only need a small amount of emergency nighttime power to prevent brownouts/blackouts.

They've spent billions on mass transit, they've spend tens of millions on bike paths... The net result has been the same amount of traffic...

That's not surprising. Increasing transportation capacity does not reduce traffic congestion in the long term.

All of that planning, and they still need to build a $3B bridge to deal with the 5+ hours of traffic jam going over the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA.

If they think the only way to eliminate the shortage of road space for all the motorists who want to use it is to add capacity by building a new bridge, they don't understand the Hamburger Analogy.

If you don't build a freeway and people still need to get to that place, they will do it via surface arterials or neighborhood streets causing the neighborhoods to become much less safe due to through traffic that should be on a freeway.

Or they'll carpool or take mass transit and let someone else drive. Or they'll ride a bike and pass all that traffic. Or they'll move closer to where they need to be. Or they'll work a different shift when traffic is lower.

You bring up a good argument for eliminating minimum parking requirements that cities force upon developers and business owners. If there were less parking available at your destination, you might try to avoid the busier periods so you can find a parking space (if parking is unpriced) or cheaper parking, or you would find a different way to get there.

I don't know of any case where variable tolls set at market equilibrium have increased traffic congestion on surface streets.